3 ms·

Nvidia hiked the TDP even higher with the 4090 to keep the performance crown.

by oynqr 4y ago

mardifoufs 4y ago
Not really, the 4090 is still miles ahead even at lower power consumption than the top end AMD cards ( 7900xtx).
- teach 4y ago
  Do you have a source for this? I thought I remembered that the 7900 XTX trades blows with the 4090 in some games even with both cards at stock settings. (Though of course the 4090 completely blows it out of the water in other games.)
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    Are you sure you're not thinking the 4080? It has very similar performance but a lower TDP https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/images/relative-performance_3840-2160.png https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/images/rela... But regarding the 4090 you can drop 100W and barely lose any performance at all e.g. https://i.redd.it/d7lq97nttkv91.png https://i.redd.it/d7lq97nttkv91.png. I assume it's at least somewhat similar for the 7900 XTX as well. The power scaling capping out so hard was really quite the disappointment given the new 600W connector.
  - giobox 4y ago
    You shouldn't need someone to fetch you a source - the performance gap is big and well documented in every single review of the 4090 or 7900XTX - hardly much of a surprise really given we are comparing a 999 dollar part to a 1600 dollar one. Just pick literally any review from the top of a google search with benchmarks. The 7900 XTX will outperform the $1200 4080 in some games using rasterized rendering, but not conclusively across the board. With ray tracing turned on, the 4080 however generally always comes out ahead in benchmarks, so the 4080 and 7900XTX can definitely be described as trading blows. There will be almost no benchmark a 7900XTX trades blows with a ~$1600 4090 on (perhaps with exception of performance per dollar...) - the 4090 will substantially outperform a 7900XTX in most things so long as you aren't CPU bound etc - its generally some 30 percent faster than the 4080 which the 7900XTX is roughly equivalent to. If money is no object for a buyer, the gap between the fastest Nvidia gaming part and the fastest AMD gaming part is pretty big at the moment, assuming you can stomach the MSRP of the 4090. The 4090 is really in a performance league of its own right now. The 7900XTX's biggest feature today is that its MSRP is 200 dollars less than the 4080, although both cards can be argued to be priced too high this generation relative to the performance offered and price points of prior gens. Rumors abound the 4080 is going to get a price cut soon.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    > I thought I remembered that the 7900 XTX trades blows with the 4090 in some games even with both cards at stock settings. (Though of course the 4090 completely blows it out of the water in other games.) Yes, that's the way averages work ;) 4090 is 127.7% of 7900XTX performance averaged across all reviewers at 4K in non-RT titles. So a good game for a 7900XTX is rubbing shoulders with the 4090... and a good game for a 4090 is doubling the framerate of a 7900XTX. 4090 is not lower power than a 7900XTX though. Which is to be expected because it's a significantly faster card. However, the 4090 does undershoot its specified TDP quite a bit, it's 418W average in gaming (on the next page) yielding 107% perf/w of a 7900XTX (so it's slightly more efficient too, just delivers a lot more frames). https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx-seite-2 https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-r...
- EugeneOZ 4y ago
  450 W vs 355 W is not "miles away". They both are hogs.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    Meta-analysis: https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx-seite-3 https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-r... across all launch reviews, 7900XTX averages 351W during gaming, while 4090 averages 418W for 127.7% of the performance (in raster-only 4K, on previous page), working out to 107% of the perf/w. 4080 is actually even more efficient, 297W actual power for 96.9% of 4K performance, giving 115% of the perf/w of the 7900XTX. 7900XT actually falls a bit farther behind, at only 96% of the perf/w. Compared to a 3080 10GB (which is not a power-hog, that's one of the original fairly-efficient configs) being 70% of the perf/w, that makes the 4080 115/70 = 164% of the perf/w, they are significantly more efficient than previous gens, not at all "power hogs". 6800XT (probably the most efficient card of last gen) is 74% of the perf/w of 7900XTX and that puts the 4080 at 155% of the perf/w of the 6800XT. Here's the 4070 Ti data but it doesn't really change anything (conveniently the 4070 Ti efficiency works out just about exactly the same as 7900XTX): https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti/launch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-seite-4 https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-nvidia-gefor... And please don't whip out the "X watts is too much", arguing that products that you don't want to purchase personally shouldn't be manufactured is a shitty thing to do. If you want a 300W card, buy the 4080. If you want a 270W card, the 4070 Ti is right there. Lower-end cards will be launched over time, it's not going to be high-end-only forever. Ada Lovelace is by a large margin the most efficient generation that has ever launched. The problem is clearly pricing and not efficiency, people just listed to a bunch of dumb techtubers last summer and earnestly believed that a 900W TBP card was going to be a mainstream product and once gamerzzz latch onto an NVIDIA conspiracy theory they're sure as hell not going to renounce it. Efficiency bad, it doesn't matter what the numbers say. Oh, efficiency is good? Well still too much power. Oh there's cards available at the same power as last gen? Listen here buddy NVIDIA bad, did I stutter?
    - EugeneOZ 4y ago

Nvidia hiked the TDP even higher with the 4090 to keep the performance crown.

by oynqr 4y ago

Nvidia hiked the TDP even higher with the 4090 to keep the performance crown.

mardifoufs 4y ago

Not really, the 4090 is still miles ahead even at lower power consumption than the top end AMD cards ( 7900xtx).

teach 4y ago
Do you have a source for this? I thought I remembered that the 7900 XTX trades blows with the 4090 in some games even with both cards at stock settings. (Though of course the 4090 completely blows it out of the water in other games.)
- zamadatix 4y ago
  Are you sure you're not thinking the 4080? It has very similar performance but a lower TDP https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/images/relative-performance_3840-2160.png https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/images/rela... But regarding the 4090 you can drop 100W and barely lose any performance at all e.g. https://i.redd.it/d7lq97nttkv91.png https://i.redd.it/d7lq97nttkv91.png. I assume it's at least somewhat similar for the 7900 XTX as well. The power scaling capping out so hard was really quite the disappointment given the new 600W connector.
- giobox 4y ago
  You shouldn't need someone to fetch you a source - the performance gap is big and well documented in every single review of the 4090 or 7900XTX - hardly much of a surprise really given we are comparing a 999 dollar part to a 1600 dollar one. Just pick literally any review from the top of a google search with benchmarks. The 7900 XTX will outperform the $1200 4080 in some games using rasterized rendering, but not conclusively across the board. With ray tracing turned on, the 4080 however generally always comes out ahead in benchmarks, so the 4080 and 7900XTX can definitely be described as trading blows. There will be almost no benchmark a 7900XTX trades blows with a ~$1600 4090 on (perhaps with exception of performance per dollar...) - the 4090 will substantially outperform a 7900XTX in most things so long as you aren't CPU bound etc - its generally some 30 percent faster than the 4080 which the 7900XTX is roughly equivalent to. If money is no object for a buyer, the gap between the fastest Nvidia gaming part and the fastest AMD gaming part is pretty big at the moment, assuming you can stomach the MSRP of the 4090. The 4090 is really in a performance league of its own right now. The 7900XTX's biggest feature today is that its MSRP is 200 dollars less than the 4080, although both cards can be argued to be priced too high this generation relative to the performance offered and price points of prior gens. Rumors abound the 4080 is going to get a price cut soon.
- paulmd 4y ago
  > I thought I remembered that the 7900 XTX trades blows with the 4090 in some games even with both cards at stock settings. (Though of course the 4090 completely blows it out of the water in other games.) Yes, that's the way averages work ;) 4090 is 127.7% of 7900XTX performance averaged across all reviewers at 4K in non-RT titles. So a good game for a 7900XTX is rubbing shoulders with the 4090... and a good game for a 4090 is doubling the framerate of a 7900XTX. 4090 is not lower power than a 7900XTX though. Which is to be expected because it's a significantly faster card. However, the 4090 does undershoot its specified TDP quite a bit, it's 418W average in gaming (on the next page) yielding 107% perf/w of a 7900XTX (so it's slightly more efficient too, just delivers a lot more frames). https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx-seite-2 https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-r...
EugeneOZ 4y ago
450 W vs 355 W is not "miles away". They both are hogs.
- paulmd 4y ago
  Meta-analysis: https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-xtx-seite-3 https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-amd-radeon-r... across all launch reviews, 7900XTX averages 351W during gaming, while 4090 averages 418W for 127.7% of the performance (in raster-only 4K, on previous page), working out to 107% of the perf/w. 4080 is actually even more efficient, 297W actual power for 96.9% of 4K performance, giving 115% of the perf/w of the 7900XTX. 7900XT actually falls a bit farther behind, at only 96% of the perf/w. Compared to a 3080 10GB (which is not a power-hog, that's one of the original fairly-efficient configs) being 70% of the perf/w, that makes the 4080 115/70 = 164% of the perf/w, they are significantly more efficient than previous gens, not at all "power hogs". 6800XT (probably the most efficient card of last gen) is 74% of the perf/w of 7900XTX and that puts the 4080 at 155% of the perf/w of the 6800XT. Here's the 4070 Ti data but it doesn't really change anything (conveniently the 4070 Ti efficiency works out just about exactly the same as 7900XTX): https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti/launch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-seite-4 https://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/launch-analyse-nvidia-gefor... And please don't whip out the "X watts is too much", arguing that products that you don't want to purchase personally shouldn't be manufactured is a shitty thing to do. If you want a 300W card, buy the 4080. If you want a 270W card, the 4070 Ti is right there. Lower-end cards will be launched over time, it's not going to be high-end-only forever. Ada Lovelace is by a large margin the most efficient generation that has ever launched. The problem is clearly pricing and not efficiency, people just listed to a bunch of dumb techtubers last summer and earnestly believed that a 900W TBP card was going to be a mainstream product and once gamerzzz latch onto an NVIDIA conspiracy theory they're sure as hell not going to renounce it. Efficiency bad, it doesn't matter what the numbers say. Oh, efficiency is good? Well still too much power. Oh there's cards available at the same power as last gen? Listen here buddy NVIDIA bad, did I stutter?
  - EugeneOZ 4y ago